SUMMARY: Termination of parental rights was improper because the parents have made significant improvements as parents, have worked extremely hard to regain custody and have made progress toward the case goals.
Autumn L., DOB 9/99, Nancy W., DOB 7/03, Amber W., DOB 8/04, and Charles W., DOB 11/05, were removed from the home on August 8, 2008, due to filthy living conditions. The parents pled no contest to the allegations and disposition was held on December 16, 2008, where the court ordered the parents to maintain stable housing, maintain a source of income, participate in individual therapy and participate in family therapy. Several review hearings were held and, on August 3, 2010, the State filed petitions to terminate the parents’ parental rights. From the time of removal to the time of trial, the parents attended consistent parenting time. The consensus of the professionals assessing the visits was that the parents’ skills improved, that they provided the children with appropriate food and clothing, that they accepted re-direction and, generally, that they made significant progress. There had been some issues with the parents finding acceptable housing, likely due to their lack of finances, but evidence established that they made efforts to correct the problems that were identified, and there was no issue with cleanliness. Before and up to the time of trial, the parents had been maintaining an acceptable residence. The parents also, without assistance from DHHS, secured therapy and generally consistently attended, with the therapists finding that progress was being made. The parents also made legal income, although with there being no pay stubs with the mom and the income being from plasma for the dad, DHHS was concerned as to its stability. After trial, the court terminated the parental rights of the parents. The parents appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the terminations of parental rights. It noted that although the children had been out of home more than 15 of the past 22 months, they also needed to find there to be no reasonable alternative and that this was a last resort. The Court of Appeals found that this did not exist in this case because, while not perfect, the parents made significant improvements as parents. They complied with the goals set out in the case plan, made substantial progress in parenting skills during parenting time, and maintained strong bonds with the children. The Court of Appeals noted the parents’ maintenance of an appropriate home and legal source of income, even though they weren’t ideal to DHHS.